En el proceso de adquisición y recuerdo de información, un aspecto fundamental es el de la supervisión de la comprensión. Entre las posibles formas de evaluarla están la “calibración de la comprensión” (medida de la relación de los pronósticos y la actuación real), el “sesgo” y la “precisión”. Las investigaciones sobre el tema indican que la calibración, aunque distinta de 0, es deficiente; en cuanto al sesgo, se aprecia un generalizado sentimiento de hiper confianza en diferentes tareas y grupos. Por eso, en esta investigación se han utilizado diferentes recursos para incrementar la calibración: aplazamiento de los pronósticos (diez minutos), presentación de items similares a los de la prueba final y feedback autogenerado o externo. Las conclusiones que podemos extraer de los datos son: la calibración de la comprensión es limitada y no se incrementa significativamente mediante el aplazamiento de las estimaciones. La contestación de las preguntas y las dos formas de feedback mejoran la calibración; las mejoras son superiores en el feedback autogenerado; en todos los casos, los sujetos con inferior nivel lector mejoran la calibración más que los d comprensión superior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BalzerW.K.DohertyM.E.O'connorR. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance.Psychological Bulletin, 106 (3), 410–433.
2.
DufresneA.KobasigagawaA. (1989). Children's spontaneous allocation of study time: differential and sufficient aspects.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 274–296.
3.
DunloskyJ.NelsonT.O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgment of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur?Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 545–556.
4.
DunloskyJ.NelsonT.O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOLs) and the delayed JOL effect.Memory and Cognition, 20 (4), 374–380.
5.
ErevIWallstenT.S.BudescuD.V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: the role of error in judgment processes.Psychological Review, 101 (3), 519–527.
6.
GhatalaE.S.LevinJ.R.FoormanB.R.PressleyM. (1989). Improving children's regulation of their reading Perceived Readiness for Examination Performance (PREP) time.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 49–66.
7.
GlengergA.M.EpsteinW. (1985). Calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11 (4), 702–718.
8.
GlengergA.M.EpsteinW. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension.Memory and Cognition, 15 (1), 84–93.
9.
GlengergA.M.SanockiT.EpsteinW.MorrisC. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116 (2), 119–136.
10.
GonzálezJ. (1991). La mejora de la inteligencia. EnMartínezM.R.YelaM. (eds.), Pensamiento e inteligencia.Madrid: Alhambra.
11.
HancockT.E.StockW.A.KulhavyR.W. (1992). Predicting feedback effects from response-certitude estimates.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30 (2), 173–176.
12.
HogartR.M.GibbsB.J.MckenzieCRMMarquisM.A. (1991). Learning from feedback: exactingness and incentives.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17 (4), 734–752.
13.
KoriatA. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accesibility model of the feeling of knowing.Psychological Review, 100 (4), 609–639.
14.
KoriatA. (1994). Memory's knowledge of its own knowledge: the accesibility account of the feeling of knowing. EnMetcalfeJ.ShimamuraA.P. (eds.), Metacognition. Knowing about knowing.Cambridge: MIT Press.
15.
KulhavyR.W.StockW.A.ThorntonN E.WinstonK.S.BehrensJ.T. (1990a). Response feedback, certitude and learning from text.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 161–170.
16.
KulhavyR.W.StockW. A.HancockT.E.SwindellL.K.HammrichP/L. (1990b). Written feedback: response certitude and durability.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 319–332.
17.
LeonesioR.J.NelsonT.O. (1990). Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16 (3), 464–470.
18.
LundebergM.A.FoxP.W.PuncocharJ. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: gender differences and similirities in confidence judgments.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (1), 114–121.
19.
MaglianoJ.P.LittleLD.GraesserA.C. (1993). The impact of comprehension instruction on the calibration of comprehension.Reading Research and Instruction, 32 (3), 49–63.
20.
MakiR.H.FoleyJ.M.KajerW.K.ThompsonR.CWillertM.G. (1990). Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16 (4), 609–616.
21.
MakiR.H.SerraM. (1992a). Role of practice tests in the accuracy of test predictions on text material.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (2), 200–210.
22.
MakiR.H.SerraM. (1992b). The basis of test predictions for text material.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18 (1), 116–126.
23.
MeyerA.S.BockK. (1992). The tip of the tongue phenomenon: blocking or partial activation?Memory and Cognition, 20 (6), 715–726.
24.
NelsonT.O.NarensL. (1990). Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. EnBowerG. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning an motivation. Vol. 26. Nueva York: Academic Press.
25.
ScrawG.PotenzaM.T.Nebelsick-GuilletL. (1993). Constraints in the calibration of comprehension.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 455–463.
26.
SmithS.M. (1994). Frustrated feelings of inminent recall: on te tip of the tongue. EnMetcalfeJ.ShimamuraA. P. (eds.), Metacognition. Knowing about knowing.Cambridge: MIT Press.
27.
ThiedeK.W.DunloloskyJ. (1994). Delaying students' metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (2), 290–302.
28.
WeaverC.A. (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16 (2), 214–222.
29.
WeaverC.A.BryantD.S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: the role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text.Memory and Cognition, 23 (1), 12–22.
30.
WebbJ.M.StockW.A.MccartyM.T. (1994). The effect of feedback timing on learning facts: the role of response confidence.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 251–265.
31.
ZechmeisterE.B.RuschK.M.MarkellK.A. (1986). Training college students to asses accurately what they know and don't know.Human Learning, 5, 3–19.
32.
ZellermayerM. (1989). The study of teachers' written feedback to students' written: changes in theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts.Instructional Science, 18, 145–165.
